The
Environment Council / Shell - Brent Spar Project
ISSUES: How
to dispose of an oil storage buoy that was provoking international attention and
incidents
GOALS: To find a suitable disposal option and contractor to
implement the decommissioning of the Brent Spar, an agreed decommissioning plan that all stakeholders could support
PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS: Central
and local government, NGOs and pressure groups, Ethics specialists, academics,
technical experts and contractors, Shell staff
TIME
FRAME: November 96 to December 97 (actual decommissioning finished on schedule
January 2000)
MSP CONTACT DETAILS; URL: The
Environment Council, UK; www.the-environment-council.org.uk
Type:
Advising Shell on a decision they have to present to the UK Government
Level:
Regional / Europe-wide. UK Government decision.
The 'Brent Spar Project' was Shell’s constructive and
participative approach following its dispute with Greenpeace in 1995. Convened
by the EC, the company sat down with a large number of its stakeholders and
worked through a stakeholder dialogue process, which enabled a new
recommendation for the fate of the Spar as a quay extension in Norway" (The
Environment Council).
“A real dialogue must be a two-way conversation. We must listen, engage
and respond to our stakeholders. We will be judged by our actions rather than
our fine words” Harry Roels,
Shell Services International, Shell Report 2000 (www.shell.com/royal-en/content).
Procedural Aspects:
Designing the MSP
Initially
a professional facilitator (The Environment Council) designed the process in
consultation with the project manager from Shell, talking closely to some other
stakeholders. Once the process was started, the stakeholders fed back on both
content and process and they too shaped the design.
Identifying the issues to be addressed in an MSP
The
stakeholders were given free rein with the issues, but the facilitator had tried
the process out on Shell staff and bounced it off some other stakeholders to do
a dry run to make sure she was prepared, and that the process was robust. Issues
were generated at the workshop, in small, facilitated groups.
Identifying relevant stakeholders
The
Environment Council, through its experience of dialogue identifies organisations
and sometimes individuals, then asks the question “Is there anybody not on our
list that you think really should be?” The
list stays open. The rule for the Brent Spar was that every person who attended
the dialogue workshops needed to have a “constituency” which they
represtented, and must report back to then, and feed back any constituency
thoughts into the dialogue process. That way many more people were reached than
were able physically to be there. In the Environment Councils experience
participants often need help when dealing with their constituencies.
Identifying MSP participants
If
when the stakeholders have been invited and a disproportionate number of one
particular type – say industry representatives - respond, then the Environment
Council will actively chase stakeholders from other sectors to balance numbers.
Setting the goals of an MSP
Content
goals were not set. A question is posed. It was not “Where do you want to
decommission the Brent Spar?” but “How can we decommission the Brent Spar in
a way all stakeholders can support?”
Often
the funder (in this case Shell) has a need (to dispose of the Brent Spar), and
the goals is to keep the question as broad as possible. For many, they thought
Shell still wanted to “dump” as they called it, because it was the cheapest
option. Funders need to be aware that goals are likely to develop – they are
likely to hear things in the dialogue that make them want to change their goals
when a quicker/less conflictual path becomes apparent. It is often something
nobody has thought of before, because the “intelligence” has never been
brought together in this way before. This happened with the Brent Spar. It went
from being a piece of waste that Shell had to dispose of, to a highly valued bit
of steel which a number of development projects would dearly have loved to get
their hands on.
Setting the agenda
Agenda
in terms of process – what happens – the Core Group (in this case The
Environment Council facilitator and Shell staff) set the agenda. In terms of
what is talked about, it is up to the participants.
The shell was provided by the facilitators; participants provide the
filling and therefore the kind of outcome.
Setting the time-table
Facilitators
had an idea of a timetable, but this was open to change – it depends on the
level of conflict.
Preparatory process
Many
papers, a computer CD and other very user friendly documents were produced and
distributed to the stakeholders – to help them decide if they wanted to be
part of the dialogue process. Central records of all meetings are kept by the
Project Co-ordinator at The Environemnt Council. This is usually in the form of
photoreports of meetings which are written on flipchart paper.
Communication process
In
the beginning, when discovering who is a stakeholder, there is a lot of
one-to-one phone work to build the list. Then invitations and information are
being sent out. Then joining instructions and then the participants turn up at
the workshop. This was the first time some have met, and some had met in
confrontational situations – eg on TV news programmes.
If
there is high conflict there are facilitators facilitating small groups. They
ensure that voices are heard, and thoughts and values are translated into words
on the flipchart. It is an essential part of planning a process that people of
all types are able to contribute. For those who have a problem talking in large
plenary groups, there are smaller group exercises.
Decision-making process: procedures of agreement
Consensus
was sought by asking appropriate questions and choosing appropriate techniques
to ensure that there is a level of understanding amongst the participants that
enables them to make decisions based on technical issues and the values and
needs of their constituencies. The facilitator designed this process and
intervened to ask questions that aim to get to consensus agreements.
The
key to this was to get the participants – at workshops in London, Copenhagen,
Holland and Germany to come up with criteria that any proposed option should
meet. Thus, if Shell chose a disposal option which met these criteria, the
stakeholders would be happy.
Implementation process
The
implementation was the whole content of the dialogue. The potential contractors
were well aware of and at some points involved in the dialogue.
Closing the MSP
Process
concluded when there was a final stakeholder workshop and the participants
agreed that they were happy for Shell to make a final decision based on the
criteria supplied by the participants and on specific pointers and concerns
around each option that were highlighted at that workshop.
The
participants were asked for fun to choose, in small groups, which option they
would like. The difference in opinion was striking, and some groups didn’t
like the exercise at all. This demonstrated the difficulty in the
decision-making process.
Structural Aspects:
Structures / institutions of the MSP
The
Environment Council managed the whole process and had many “planning
meetings” with Shell to make sure everyone was up to date, and that the
material going out was in English (not engineering speak) etc.
The
Environment Council arranged invitations, venues etc. being best aware of what
is required. This was a highly political issue at the time, and The Environment
Council co-ordinator and facilitator acted as “honest brokers” at times with
parties who had difficulty contributing to, understanding and/or trusting the
process. “Workshops” were used to gain input from participants, and to put
dilemmas to participants, in order to inform Shell of stakeholder needs, and to
inform stakeholders of Shell’s constraints in choosing options (eg there was a
hole which made the structure unsafe).
Facilitation
The
Environment Council managed all – as above.
Documentation
Reporting
was done verbatim from flip-charts and post-it notes used at the events. Reports
were also transcribed with nothing changed. Stakeholders can then share the
outcomes of the workshops with their constituents to get their feedback and
comment on the process. The reports were put on the web and available to anybody
in document form, too.
Relating to not-participating stakeholders
See
above– the facilitator was constantly on call to all participants who feel
they may have difficulty relating why they made the decisions they did at the
dialogue workshop. Sometimes a stakeholder may go back to their constituency and
because they have been through the learning experience of the workshop, has
quite a different opinion to what they would have thought. The constituency has
not had this learning experience, and there might be a difficulty at this stage
(“constituency drift”) .
Relating to the general public
There
were schools packs made up, a competition to see who had good ideas for the
decommissioning of the Brent Spar, a web site and an interactive CD and probably
many other forms of communication. The press were particularly interested in
this project, so disseminating the decisions of the process was very easy (e.g.
the 6 o’clock news).
Linkage into official decision-making process
Shell
needed to present a recommendation to the Government. The government could
reject their recommendation, but since there was a wide range of stakeholder
support for the final decision, this was highly unlikely. The UK Government
welcomes processes that produce consensus between a wide range of stakeholders,
because it makes Ministers jobs easier – they know there will be no key
stakeholder who object to the decision they make.
Funding
Shell
paid – on the polluter pays principle. Shell were definitely the problem
holder, having had a flawed decision-making process the first time around. (Not
legally flawed, but it was not a legitimate decision, ie the public would not
let them implement the decision. The process cost £ 450,000.
[ information gathered as of 16 February 2001 ]
